Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 17 March 2011 01:27
(A review of
Little Nicky)
Honestly, I have never been a huge fan of Adam Sandler but I have still managed to watch 2/3 of his movies. Not so long ago, there was a time that Adam Sandler was one of the few stars (like Will Smith and Johnny Depp) who could guarantee a box-office success but, nowadays, those days are actually gone as most of his recent movies have been flops. Anyway, more than a decade ago, while Sandler was at the height of his popularity, he made this flick and, considering the gross, we can say that this one flopped. Was it the haircut? Did the moviegoers wake up eventually and decided that they won´t tolerate this crap anymore ? Difficult to say⌠I saw this one and, even though it wasnât one of his worst efforts, it was still very average. I mean, for once, he did try to play a different character than usual but his Nicky was just so obnoxious, so pathetic, it was after all not really an improvement. At least, there was a decent supporting cast but it wasnât nearly enough to save this flick. To conclude, I have seen worse, but I still didnât like it much and I donât think it is worth a look, expect maybe if you are a die-hard fan of Adam Sandler.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 17 March 2011 01:23
(A review of
Big Daddy)
I wonder if it was the very first movie that I watched starring Adam Sandler. Anyway, I remember it very well when I saw this movie. Indeed, back then, I was about to become a father for the first time (actually, I already had 2 step-children but my biological daughter was soon to be born) and my wife saw this movie on DVD and she thought it would be neat gift for me. It was kind of sweet of her but she had no idea if it was any good and, indeed, the damned thing turned out to be seriously lame. I mean, I have to admit it, if you would compare it to what Sandler has been making lately, you could almost say that it was watchable but it was still rather cringe-inducing to behold. As usual, Sandler portrays one of his typical moronic character who was supposed to be hilarious but I really didnât see what was supposed to be so funny about this guy. Anyway, to conclude, even though I have seen worse movies with this actor, it was stil pretty weak and I donât think it is worth a look, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of the genre.Â
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 17 March 2011 01:17
(A review of
Billy Madison)
I don't know if you have noticed but Iâm not exactly a huge fan of Adam Sandler. In fact, nowadays, you wonât find many people claiming that they love his work since his latest movies have been quite abysmal. However, many would argue that his first movies were actually quite brilliant and hilarious so I was quite eager to check this one out. So, with this movie, Adam's Sandler first starring movie, that's basically where it all started. At the time, even though it was poorly received by the critics, it was a surprise success at the box-office and Adam Sandler has been making hits for the next 20 years without looking back ever since. At last, I finally saw the damned thing and, to be honest, I thought it was a rather average and moronic comedy. In my opinion, the worst thing is that, if it had flopped, we probably would have missed all those stupid movies that he has made afterwards. However, since it was a success , it became the blue-print for all the following comedies starring Sandler and, actually, they could all be called âBilly Madison 2â, âBilly Madison 3â, âBilly Madison 4â,⌠To conclude, even though I have seen worse, I still think it is a rather weak comedy and I donât think it is really worth a look, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of Adam Sandlerâs work.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 17 March 2011 10:40
(A review of
Seven Pounds)
Since I kept hearing some pretty good things about this movie, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good. The funny thing with this movie is that it seems that the mainstream audience has been so used to see Will Smith showing up in some entertaining but rather brainless blockbusters that, when they finally saw him in something slightly more dramatic and insightful, they started to claim it was some kind of masterpiece. Well, I donât think it was something really groundbreaking but even so, I thought that the whole thing was rather well done. Indeed, for once, Will Smith had to display his acting skills as well as Rosario Dawson. To be honest I donât think it is for the impatient viewer as, for the most part of the duration, you are basically kept in the dark and it was only in the last 10 minutes that you finally got some answers about what the hell was actually going on. To conclude, even though it was not really a masterpiece, I thought it was a nice little movie and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Will Smitthâs work.Â
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 16 March 2011 10:35
(A review of
Fireflies In The Garden (2008))
I wasnât really sure what to expect from this flick since there was a pretty cool cast involved, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, even though it wasnât flawless, I still really liked this movie. One issue I had was that it took me about 20 minutes to figure out all the characters. It was partly due to some rather weird casting choices. Indeed, for example, Hayden Panettiere and Emily Watson played the same characters at different ages! I mean, seriously, do you really believe that Hayden Panettiere, when she will get older, will look anything like Emily Watson?!? I don't think so... The other thing that bothered me was that the mother (Julia Roberts) was just too damned perfect while the father (William Dafoe) was just a worthless *sshole. Eventually, I think it would have worked better if the characters would have been more balanced. Still, in spite of its flaws, I thought it was a pretty good movie. Indeed, the story was interesting and Julia Roberts gave here one of her best performances. It was also nice to finally see an interesting movie with Ryan Reynolds who otherwise always shows some potential in some average/worthless pictures. To conclude, even if it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was a decent drama and I think  it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.Â
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 16 March 2011 09:02
(A review of
Born Yesterday)
Since this movie is pretty much a classic, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, even though it wasnât bad, I have to admit that I seriously had a hard time to care about the damned thing. At least, Judy Hollyday did look gorgeous and she definitely gave a very good performance (she even won at the time the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role) . It is quite a shame she would stop only 10 years later after this movie because she was seriously talented and charismatic. Anyway, except for Holliday, the movie itself was actually nothing really amazing in my opinion. Sure, it was all rather harmless and innocent but it was also rather dull. I mean, seriously, back then, it was possible to release a comedy with such a rather lame concept and get a hit but I doubt it would work nowadays. And, indeed, 40 years later, they tried to remake the damned thing with Melanie Griffith playing the main character but it was really poorly received. To conclude, even though I donât think it grew old very well, it is and remains a classic, so I think it is  worth a look, especially if you like the genre.Â
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 15 March 2011 02:04
(A review of
A Mighty Heart)
For already 20 years, I have been following Michael Winterbottomâs work and even though not all his movies have been exactly amazing because the guy is pretty much workaholic making at least one movie every single year, they have all been worth a look. From this very productive output, I think this movie had definitely the highest profile. Indeed, this time, Winterbottom was working with Angelina Jolie, already at the time the biggest female movie star in the world, and it was dealing with a story which was all over the news at the time. Eventually, even though it received some decent reviews, it was apparently a box-office flop but I thought it was actually a really good flick. Indeed, for all the people who doubt that Angelina Jolie has any talent, you should definitely check this movie. Indeed, I thought she was very good here and she probably gave her best performance. Concerning the story itself, I thought it was very interesting and the directing by Michael Winterbottom was, as usual, very competent. To conclude, even though it is nowadays a little bit forgotten, I thought it was a very strong drama and it is definitely worth a look.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 15 March 2011 12:50
(A review of
11:14 (2003))
To be honest, I really had no idea what to expect from this movie. Indeed, it is pretty obscure but since there was a pretty cool cast, I was quite eager to check it out. At the end of the day, I have to admit it, this movie was not really original but I still liked it. Indeed, basically, it is one of these hyperlink tales where the characters are involved in some separate stories but they all converge towards each other usually during a climax at the end. So, this is actually a rather old gimmick but I always had a weak spot for the genre and I thought it was actually well done here. Indeed, the characters were captivating enough thanks to a pretty cool cast (Henry Thomas, Barbara Hershey, Clark Gregg, Hilary Swank, Colin Hanks, Ben Foster, Patrick Swayze, Rachael Leigh Cook, Jason Segel) and the whole thing was rather enjoyable and entertaining. Concerning Rachael Leigh Cook, even though she always seemd intriguing, by now, I have 7 of her movies and this flick was the only one which was actually good. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was nothing really ground-breaking, I thought it was fairly entertaining and it is actually definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 15 March 2011 12:41
(A review of
Critters 4)
When I was a kid, without daring watching the damned thing, I thought that âCrittersâ looked awesome and pretty scary. Eventually, it took me about 20 years to finally watch it and I have to admit that it was rather harmless and pretty lame after all. So, you wonder why I would bother watch also the sequels as well since I didnât really like the first installment to start with? Well, the whole reason I ended up watching this franchise is because I bought a (very cheap) dvd box with all the movies. So, basically, I'm not a big fan of those Critters movies and this last one was easily the worst of them. Apparently, this installment was shot back to back with âCritters 3â and, this time, they event sent those little bastards into space so the makers seemed pretty ambitious but the whole thing was still lame anyway. Even the always lovely Angela Bassett couldnât save this flick which would be the last installment in this rather underwhelming franchise. So, I didnât really like the damned thing but if you're into this kind of things, you may enjoy it more than I did but otherwise, you should rather avoid it.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 15 March 2011 12:12
(A review of
The Nativity Story)
To be honest, I wasnât really sure what to expect from this flick but I still wanted to check it out. First of all, I have to admit, it, I have no religious education so I know the basic stuff but not in details. On the other hand, even though it might seem contradictory, I always thought that religion was a fascinating subject. Anyway, I thought that this movie was rather interesting as it helped me to learn more about this religious âtaleâ. However, the whole thing was really straightforward, in fact, it was so straightforward that there was nothing really challenging whatsoever about it. The only âedgyâ element was the fact that Keisha Castle-Hugues, who was just 16 years old at the time, was herself pregnant when filming this film which is pretty weird considering that she was playing Mary, probably the most famous famous teenage mother that ever existed. Coming back to Castle-Hugues, she was one of the reasons I wanted to watch this flick and after the amazing âWhale Riderâ, it seemed that she had an amazing career ahead of her but, eventually, she never fulfilled those expectations. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, I still think it is a decent religious feature and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Login
Home
581 Lists
7720 Reviews
Collections